cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Grand Global Alliance
I think that this needs to be put under Major alliances Template:Alliance_infobox I'm going to be changing this page to use the infobox listed above when I get a chance, if there are any ideas for changes to the infobox, let me know. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Diplomacy I think that all that rubbish about fairness, courtesy and peace-loving should be taken away from your page (my .02). You have been not even near to that, when dealing with my nation (danjarland). And, before you treat this comment as "vandalism", ask yourself if you know what a wiki is, and what a discussion page is; don't act if you didn't sort it out yet... For reference, see GGA Membership Sign-up Thread Danjar 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Diplomacy (2) After having reverted Bilrow's vandalism upon my criticism, I add another point about the so-called "GGA's Fairness". While fair means "free from favoritism, self-interest, or preference in judgment", the ridiculous GGA's "Doctrine" basically states that only the GGA (and GPA) can have Green Senators, while every other Nation/Alliance must not. Green alliances need the GGA's "permission" to exist, while the GGA doesn't need any third party permission to do the same (and actually to act as the Green Team - abusive - "owner"). War is clearly threatened upon any Nation/Alliance the GGA claim may be a "threat" for them, no matter if those entities really did something against the GGA, or even how ridiculous the whole idea can be. The GGA wouldn't obviously accept any similar "doctrine" by any other Green Alliance, and would declare war upon anybody that tried to do the same they're just doing. It's too much obvious that this is only what old and new Nazis do and used to do, but this is not my point, anyway. Other Alliances are doing the same (and this keeps players away from this game, IMHO). The real issue is: isn't all that talking of fairness and courtesy extremely out of place in the GGA's wiki? No matter how much the GGA scream they're "fair", all they're up to is to use their brute force to enforce their objectives, no matter if they will have to step upon anyone. This is just the opposite of the idea of "Chivalry" itself, plain and simple: why not admit it? Danjar 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) De-semiprotect page? I think, perhaps, it is called for to de-semi-protect this page. It's been semi-protected for some time, and doesn't appear to be the target of much vandalism. What does everyone think? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation) :Is it possible to get responsible people designated to fix parts of the page? (I don't know if vandalism has been a problem or not...) :I'd really like to update the page, as a lot of the information about government is out of date, and many of the links are broken, and don't link to the new forum, etc. Just basic facts, rather than any sort of political this or that. :) Laomedon ::Yeah, I think the introduction could definitely undergo some modifications. It's rather, shall we say, optimistic. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 22:45, January 17, 2010 (UTC) Second Unjust War There appears to be some disagreement about whether or not GGA suffered a defeat during the Second Unjust War, or whether they were given white peace. Based merely off the OWF post, it appears they surrendered to MHA, and the MHA granted them very light surrender terms; thus I would call it a Defeat. What does everyone else think? -- Dynasty Talk • Grand Besaid 18:45, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Since the terms don't mandate reparations be paid, I'd call it white peace following defeat - hence the red text as opposed to the green text used for the Second VietFAN War (white peace after victory). Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 7:83, Septidi, 27 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::Works for me. -- Dynasty Talk • Grand Besaid 18:57, February 15, 2010 (UTC) While we're talking war... "CIS-1V War - One Vision vs. Confederacy of Imperial States - Confederacy of Imperial States Disbands" Given that CIS actually disbanded before the war even started, is there any better way this could be worded? Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 7:84, Septidi, 27 Pluviôse CCXVIII :How about just "victory" then? Locke Talk • Alestor ' 18:52, February 15, 2010 (UTC)' ::Sounds good to me. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 7:88, Septidi, 27 Pluviôse CCXVIII ::: Maybe "Victory by Preemptive Disbandment of CIS" or "de facto Victory" -- Dynasty Talk • Grand Besaid 18:57, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Job Tags This alliance needs a job-tag / dog-tag article like NPO, IRON, and TIO Similar proposals are being made for GATO, Legion, and NpO (GGA would also be great, if they ever had any and Bilrow can be found!) RenegadeOfficer (talk • ) 16:02, July 9, 2012 (UTC)